9 ms·

Slightly less sinister hypothesis: aaronsw turned down a slap on the wrist plea bargain. The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to tak

Slightly less sinister hypothesis: aaronsw turned down a slap on the wrist plea bargain. The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to take a guy to federal court over a $20k fine and a year of probation. You know that maximum about malice, incompetence, etc.? I'm not saying I _know_ for sure but it strikes me that most people think they are doing good in the world and I don't get why this prosecutor isn't getting the same benefit of doubt. Actually, I kind of do. Aaron was one of the community's favorites and to some degree that trumps truth-finding.

kenko 14y ago
"The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to take a guy to federal court over a $20k fine and a year of probation." You know the prosecutor could have just not taken him to court at all, right?
drzaiusapelord 14y ago
Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want prosecution and arguably neither did MIT. I can't stand these justifications that seem to make everyone a slave to the machine. Heck, you and I break hundreds of laws a day, maybe even a felony or two or three. Federal prosecutors can do whatever they want with us. We have no power over them. We can at least expect them to go after real crime with real victims instead of political activists. If we lived by these "go by the letter of the law and prosecute everyone who breaks any law" ideals then literally everyone except newborns would be in prison.
- cynicalkane 14y ago
  Pro tip: if someone calls a hypothesis "slightly less sinister", he is probably not trying to justify it as a good thing. What the OP is talking about is why prosecutors are the way they are, and suggesting the answer is more complicated than "these specific people are evil". This is worthy of discussion and it's not up to you to kill it by accusing the OP of defending a situation he is clearly not defending.
- rayiner 14y ago
  You're conflating two very different things. This was no case of overzealous prosecution based on vague laws for the kind of activity that everyone does every day. Swartz purposefully accessed a protected computer network without permission, and purposefully copied a huge number of documents which he had no right to copy. He did all of these things willfully, with no defense that he was incapable of understanding the implications of his actions. It is disingenuous to say that breaking into MIT's network to download millions of documents illegally is no different than the kind of activity that you and I might do every day that "technically" violate various laws. Now, maybe you think "breaking in" to a poorly protected network should not be a crime. Maybe you think mass copying of copyrighted materials should not be a crime. But if you take action like Swartz did to protest these laws, you are engaging in an act of civil disobedience and inviting prosecution. And sometimes that's justified, but being prosecuted is part and parcel of civil disobedience. The rhetoric around this unfortunate incident borders on intellectually dishonest. Our democratically-elected Congress has passed laws, and under those laws breaking into a poorly-protected network isn't any less "hacking" than breaking into a poorly-protected house is trespassing. Those laws also say that scientists own the copyright to their papers, and can license them to distributors, even when their research is paid for with public grant dollars. The prosecutor in this case pursued her case according to the law. Not some technical "letter of the law" definition of the law, but in response to exactly the kinds of actions the laws were designed to address. Our democratically-elected Congress chose to make those specific things that Swartz did illegal. That doesn't mean that no one is on the hook. But it's not the relatively simple matter of stopping overzealous prosecution in one agency. The techie community has a far bigger task: convincing elected officials and those that vote for them that there are degrees to "hacking" and that publicly funded research should be freely available. That's the root of the issue here.
  - adpirz 14y ago
    For accuracy's sake, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need to "break in" to MIT's network. It's entirely open, no? At least last I was there.
    - MichaelSalib 14y ago
- Yaa101 14y ago
  This is because the prosecuters are not human, they are preditors going after the weakest in society, it is much easier to score on their carreers than taking on the stronger. Here in Europe we know very well where this all leads to, my ancestors have lived through it numerous times, the last time in the 30's and 40's.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    You should look up Godwin's law. Once you understand it you'll also understand why few thinking persons will take your comment seriously.
    - RyanMcGreal 14y ago
      Godwin's Law is designed to deter inappropriate comparisons to fascism/Nazism so as not to weaken or otherwise besmirch appropriate comparisons to fascism/Nazism. The United States government has been getting steadily and incrementally more fascistic for at least the past decade, and I would not be so quick to dismiss summarily a comparison between how the US government operates and how historic fascist governments have operated.
    - Yaa101 14y ago
      That is why we have so many problems in the world with this. Reality does not care about godwin.
    - alan_cx 14y ago
      I'm sure "thinking persons" would have considered this, but just in case: "Never forget". Godwin's Law wants you to. Worse still his "law" encourages the mocking of those who want say if they think something is getting a bit Nazi. Which you have done by implying a disconnect between his comment, thinking persons, seriousness and understanding. Why? Perhaps so no one dares point it out if it looks like its happening again? Or something else? Who would want that, and why? I'd prefer to be wrong, than get caught short. Citing this nonsense "law" is like getting people to shut up on so called "patriotic" grounds. It circumvents logic, reason and debate. Its silences people. Look at it, it is Nazi in its self. Do and think as you are told. Have to wonder, if we get more suicides of this type and people cite this case as a parallel too much, will that get a law too? Will people be told to shut up?
- javajosh 14y ago
  >literally everyone except newborns would be in prison. Actually, no. Newborns can (and therefore, should, apparently) be arrested for "disturbing the peace."
temphn 14y ago
As Lessig reported, the plea bargain would have meant pleading guilty to a felony. http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull... In that world, the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.” For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. And so as wrong and misguided and fucking sad as this is, I get how the prospect of this fight, defenseless, made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it. The prosecutor isn't getting the "benefit of the doubt" because even a cursory look into her history shows that her office and attorneys (like Steve Heymann) have been railroading defendants and pushing spurious cases (google "Ortiz Russ Caswell" or "Ortiz UIGEA"). Carmen M. Ortiz is a bad person who abused her authority and the public trust; with Steve Heymann she pushed for 35 years in federal prison for downloading pdfs even when JSTOR refused to press charges. She cannot be voted out, and she will not listen to reason, so she must be forced to resign in disgrace. This is what prosecutors call "deterrence". Sign the petition if you don't want Aaron's death to be in vain. He helped start the movement against SOPA for us, it is the least we can do for him. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat...
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  From what I understand, he committed a felony and would most probably have been labelled a felon either way. I don't see this as a reason to tie up government resources in a trial whose outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. I do not endorse what he did being a felony. But that issue is only marginally relevant to the discussion of the prosecutor's behavior.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    most probably Which means "maybe." The government should have to fight for these things, not have them handed a victory through sheer intimidation in the form of a plea bargain.
mrtron 14y ago
So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jail? I guess you are write, we should give the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt and be angry with the system that creates such a situation instead.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  > So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jail? I don't know the right answer to this question. On the one hand, it does seem wrong to send someone to jail when you were willing to give them probation if they bargained with you. On the other hand, if the bargain deal and the worst case outcome of a trial are identical, then why would anyone ever bargain? And therefore the justice system becomes even more expensive to maintain, etc. So I'm of two minds. It is also entirely possible that the prosecution had no intention of asking for the maximum, but when you consider a trial as a negotiation-game, revealing that is also not something that you can do.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    I think the flaw is in thinking of the justice system as some kind of factory where "expensive" needs to be taken into account because we're working on volume. We need to stop charging so many people with crimes. Widespread criminality can only have two causes: The first is that we've criminalized too much, and the solution is obvious, repeal the unnecessary laws. The second is that society is suffering from a systemic failure of societal institutions to make a normal life superior to a life of crime, but the solution in that case should never be to increase the rate of incarceration, the solution should be to repair the social fabric -- which is where the money we currently spend on mass incarceration should be going instead. Once you stop having so many accused, you stop needing to worry about cost, and you can just prohibit plea bargains and afford to give everyone who is accused their day in court. In fact, making prosecutions more expensive is actually a feature, because it impedes the ability to create just the sort of mass imprisonment we have today.
codewright 14y ago
maxim

kenko 14y ago

"The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to take a guy to federal court over a $20k fine and a year of probation." You know the prosecutor could have just not taken him to court at all, right?

drzaiusapelord 14y ago

Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want prosecution and arguably neither did MIT. I can't stand these justifications that seem to make everyone a slave to the machine. Heck, you and I break hundreds of laws a day, maybe even a felony or two or three. Federal prosecutors can do whatever they want with us. We have no power over them. We can at least expect them to go after real crime with real victims instead of political activists. If we lived by these "go by the letter of the law and prosecute everyone who breaks any law" ideals then literally everyone except newborns would be in prison.

cynicalkane 14y ago
Pro tip: if someone calls a hypothesis "slightly less sinister", he is probably not trying to justify it as a good thing. What the OP is talking about is why prosecutors are the way they are, and suggesting the answer is more complicated than "these specific people are evil". This is worthy of discussion and it's not up to you to kill it by accusing the OP of defending a situation he is clearly not defending.
rayiner 14y ago
You're conflating two very different things. This was no case of overzealous prosecution based on vague laws for the kind of activity that everyone does every day. Swartz purposefully accessed a protected computer network without permission, and purposefully copied a huge number of documents which he had no right to copy. He did all of these things willfully, with no defense that he was incapable of understanding the implications of his actions. It is disingenuous to say that breaking into MIT's network to download millions of documents illegally is no different than the kind of activity that you and I might do every day that "technically" violate various laws. Now, maybe you think "breaking in" to a poorly protected network should not be a crime. Maybe you think mass copying of copyrighted materials should not be a crime. But if you take action like Swartz did to protest these laws, you are engaging in an act of civil disobedience and inviting prosecution. And sometimes that's justified, but being prosecuted is part and parcel of civil disobedience. The rhetoric around this unfortunate incident borders on intellectually dishonest. Our democratically-elected Congress has passed laws, and under those laws breaking into a poorly-protected network isn't any less "hacking" than breaking into a poorly-protected house is trespassing. Those laws also say that scientists own the copyright to their papers, and can license them to distributors, even when their research is paid for with public grant dollars. The prosecutor in this case pursued her case according to the law. Not some technical "letter of the law" definition of the law, but in response to exactly the kinds of actions the laws were designed to address. Our democratically-elected Congress chose to make those specific things that Swartz did illegal. That doesn't mean that no one is on the hook. But it's not the relatively simple matter of stopping overzealous prosecution in one agency. The techie community has a far bigger task: convincing elected officials and those that vote for them that there are degrees to "hacking" and that publicly funded research should be freely available. That's the root of the issue here.
- adpirz 14y ago
  For accuracy's sake, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need to "break in" to MIT's network. It's entirely open, no? At least last I was there.
  - MichaelSalib 14y ago
Yaa101 14y ago
This is because the prosecuters are not human, they are preditors going after the weakest in society, it is much easier to score on their carreers than taking on the stronger. Here in Europe we know very well where this all leads to, my ancestors have lived through it numerous times, the last time in the 30's and 40's.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  You should look up Godwin's law. Once you understand it you'll also understand why few thinking persons will take your comment seriously.
  - RyanMcGreal 14y ago
    Godwin's Law is designed to deter inappropriate comparisons to fascism/Nazism so as not to weaken or otherwise besmirch appropriate comparisons to fascism/Nazism. The United States government has been getting steadily and incrementally more fascistic for at least the past decade, and I would not be so quick to dismiss summarily a comparison between how the US government operates and how historic fascist governments have operated.
  - Yaa101 14y ago
    That is why we have so many problems in the world with this. Reality does not care about godwin.
  - alan_cx 14y ago
    I'm sure "thinking persons" would have considered this, but just in case: "Never forget". Godwin's Law wants you to. Worse still his "law" encourages the mocking of those who want say if they think something is getting a bit Nazi. Which you have done by implying a disconnect between his comment, thinking persons, seriousness and understanding. Why? Perhaps so no one dares point it out if it looks like its happening again? Or something else? Who would want that, and why? I'd prefer to be wrong, than get caught short. Citing this nonsense "law" is like getting people to shut up on so called "patriotic" grounds. It circumvents logic, reason and debate. Its silences people. Look at it, it is Nazi in its self. Do and think as you are told. Have to wonder, if we get more suicides of this type and people cite this case as a parallel too much, will that get a law too? Will people be told to shut up?
javajosh 14y ago
>literally everyone except newborns would be in prison. Actually, no. Newborns can (and therefore, should, apparently) be arrested for "disturbing the peace."

temphn 14y ago

As Lessig reported, the plea bargain would have meant pleading guilty to a felony. http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull... In that world, the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.” For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. And so as wrong and misguided and fucking sad as this is, I get how the prospect of this fight, defenseless, made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it. The prosecutor isn't getting the "benefit of the doubt" because even a cursory look into her history shows that her office and attorneys (like Steve Heymann) have been railroading defendants and pushing spurious cases (google "Ortiz Russ Caswell" or "Ortiz UIGEA"). Carmen M. Ortiz is a bad person who abused her authority and the public trust; with Steve Heymann she pushed for 35 years in federal prison for downloading pdfs even when JSTOR refused to press charges. She cannot be voted out, and she will not listen to reason, so she must be forced to resign in disgrace. This is what prosecutors call "deterrence". Sign the petition if you don't want Aaron's death to be in vain. He helped start the movement against SOPA for us, it is the least we can do for him. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat...

jamesaguilar 14y ago
From what I understand, he committed a felony and would most probably have been labelled a felon either way. I don't see this as a reason to tie up government resources in a trial whose outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. I do not endorse what he did being a felony. But that issue is only marginally relevant to the discussion of the prosecutor's behavior.
- rhizome 14y ago
  most probably Which means "maybe." The government should have to fight for these things, not have them handed a victory through sheer intimidation in the form of a plea bargain.

mrtron 14y ago

So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jail? I guess you are write, we should give the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt and be angry with the system that creates such a situation instead.

jamesaguilar 14y ago
> So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jail? I don't know the right answer to this question. On the one hand, it does seem wrong to send someone to jail when you were willing to give them probation if they bargained with you. On the other hand, if the bargain deal and the worst case outcome of a trial are identical, then why would anyone ever bargain? And therefore the justice system becomes even more expensive to maintain, etc. So I'm of two minds. It is also entirely possible that the prosecution had no intention of asking for the maximum, but when you consider a trial as a negotiation-game, revealing that is also not something that you can do.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  I think the flaw is in thinking of the justice system as some kind of factory where "expensive" needs to be taken into account because we're working on volume. We need to stop charging so many people with crimes. Widespread criminality can only have two causes: The first is that we've criminalized too much, and the solution is obvious, repeal the unnecessary laws. The second is that society is suffering from a systemic failure of societal institutions to make a normal life superior to a life of crime, but the solution in that case should never be to increase the rate of incarceration, the solution should be to repair the social fabric -- which is where the money we currently spend on mass incarceration should be going instead. Once you stop having so many accused, you stop needing to worry about cost, and you can just prohibit plea bargains and afford to give everyone who is accused their day in court. In fact, making prosecutions more expensive is actually a feature, because it impedes the ability to create just the sort of mass imprisonment we have today.

codewright 14y ago

maxim